From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH 4/10] spidernet: zero out a pointer. Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 02:29:52 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20070516215605.GA4325@austin.ibm.com> <20070516220928.GD4997@austin.ibm.com> <1179358376.4142.4.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070522233517.GU5921@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Garzik , cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) Return-path: Received: from mail-in-04.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.44]:58158 "EHLO mail-in-04.arcor-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762032AbXEWA35 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 20:29:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070522233517.GU5921@austin.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org >> If you're going to be paranoid, shouldn't you do something here to >> make >> sure the value's hit the device? > > I thought the whole point of paranoia is that its inexplicable. > > Here's a delusional reply: I didn't see any point to it. > 1) a wmb would add overhead A wmb() doesn't guarantee the write has reached the device. > 2) the hardware is supposed to be looking at the status flag, > anyway, and not misbehaving. But you're paranoid, right? Can't trust that device! :-) Segher